As previously reported in the Daily Echo the new junction is part of a £1.7 million project to create a cycle superhighway between Woolston and the city centre. But some of the very cyclists who helped to design it alongside the council and Urban Movement say it is not the way they thought it would be.

In particular they have been critical of the fact that there are no lights purely for cyclists, as well as saying Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) are not correctly placed and lanes are too narrow.

And, following the hit and run incident on Wednesday and a series of near-misses since it reopened last Monday, they also say it has made it more dangerous for cyclists using the junction.

Promoted stories

But a council spokesman said current traffic legislation meant they could not include lights specifically for cyclists, while space constraints had impacted on the positioning of the ASLs.

He did add that cycle lights could be used if a trial currently taking place in London proves successful and legislation changes and added: “Some technical elements have been tweaked as the plans have developed to address various safety audits, legal, traffic regulations and logistical issues.”

The council’s Labourenvironment and transport czar Jacqui Rayment said: “The previous roundabout proved to be one of our highest accident black spots for cyclists so our challenge was to come up with a fresh new approach that would make the junction safer for all users.“We also had to make sure that a new approach was adopted to satisfy the conditions attached to the funding we were given.

“We are satisfied that the innovative design of the new junction will help address many of the issues brought up by residents during our consultation. We are listening to these users and recently held our first cycle forum meeting to continue this dialogue.

“We now have a more direct route to the city centre for pedestrians and cyclists alike. With any new road layout there is a period of review where we monitor how it is working for all road users and pedestrians.

“And we are constantly looking at ways to improve traffic flow and safety city wide.”

Police are still appealing for anyone who saw the cyclist knocked off their bike by a blue or black Mercedes estate at about 8.45am on Wednesday to contact them on 101.

Verdict

Are the changes to the junction really that bad? The Daily Echo’s digital editor and cyclist, Dan Kerins, took his bike out to test the new layout – and to see if they are an improvement on the old roundabout.

PULL up at the lights and get ready to push away when the lights turn green – it all seems
straightforward at first.

It is when you want to start going right that the major confusion begins – and it is the same regardless of which direction you approach the junction from.

Firstly the advanced stop lines (ASL) for cyclists are only a bike length in front of the cars and you are kept to the left rather than taking up the width of the carriageway for any rider wanting to go right.

Normally, if turning right from an ASL, I would position myself in front of the cars before then drifting over to the left after turning.

At the new junction, however, it seems you’re supposed to stay on the green skid-proof path, which takes you across the junction and is positioned to the left of the cars and lorries.

You then come to another green patch, which intersects your path – but what are you meant to do; wait for all the vehicles behind you to pass before turning, attempt going across the traffic or pull off the path and wait for the next set of lights to turn?

When pushing off I made it clear I intended to turn right and again when I was halfway across the junction.

This simply confused the motorists, who didn’t know whether to stop to let me go or speed up to get past me.

Beyond the lights there are no markings other than green lines and, to the left, a picture of a bike with an arrow pointing right.

Going straight or left is more straightforward but not without problems.

There’s always a risk that a car turning left may cut you up by turning sharply. However, coming down the Itchen Bridge, this is made worse as the left hand bend is quite tight, owing to the pavement – and the cycle path does not follow the curve of the path.

The novelty of the junction is its undoing. With the old roundabout it was clear to everyone what they had to do to get across it.

With the new layout confusion reigns and there is a distinct lack of guidance.

Share article

I survived the new layout but there were moments when I genuinely felt I could have been in real danger – just because of the sheer confusion for both me and motorists in trying to negotiate the junction.

Promoted Stories

Comments (73)

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Typical Southampton CC .
NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE..........
Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist.
And THEN tell us its "Safer"Dasal

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Score: 18

S Pance says...11:29am Fri 28 Feb 14

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?S Pance

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

Score: 0

From the sidelines says...11:29am Fri 28 Feb 14

The danger from the previous roundabout was due to two factors: - too large, allowing traffic speeds to be too high for cyclists to join easily, especially if they wanted to follow the correct line to turn right; - approach roads too wide and angled tangentially, allowing vehicles to enter and exit the roundabout too fast, encouraging them to race cyclists and cut them up. An appropriate and cheap fix would have been to make the roundabout smaller and constrict the approach roads, reducing speed on the roundabout and forcing entry/exit to be performed with more caution. Time and again, roundabouts are built too large to be safe and effective - as a rule, if you need to add traffic lights on a roundabout, you've built it wrong.

The danger from the previous roundabout was due to two factors:
- too large, allowing traffic speeds to be too high for cyclists to join easily, especially if they wanted to follow the correct line to turn right;
- approach roads too wide and angled tangentially, allowing vehicles to enter and exit the roundabout too fast, encouraging them to race cyclists and cut them up.
An appropriate and cheap fix would have been to make the roundabout smaller and constrict the approach roads, reducing speed on the roundabout and forcing entry/exit to be performed with more caution.
Time and again, roundabouts are built too large to be safe and effective - as a rule, if you need to add traffic lights on a roundabout, you've built it wrong.From the sidelines

The danger from the previous roundabout was due to two factors: - too large, allowing traffic speeds to be too high for cyclists to join easily, especially if they wanted to follow the correct line to turn right; - approach roads too wide and angled tangentially, allowing vehicles to enter and exit the roundabout too fast, encouraging them to race cyclists and cut them up. An appropriate and cheap fix would have been to make the roundabout smaller and constrict the approach roads, reducing speed on the roundabout and forcing entry/exit to be performed with more caution. Time and again, roundabouts are built too large to be safe and effective - as a rule, if you need to add traffic lights on a roundabout, you've built it wrong.

Score: 7

gilbertratchet says...11:31am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
Typical Southampton CC .
NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE..........
Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist.
And THEN tell us its "Safer"[/p][/quote]Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.gilbertratchet

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

Score: 3

Mr E says...11:31am Fri 28 Feb 14

I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.

I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.Mr E

I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.

Score: 21

From the sidelines says...11:32am Fri 28 Feb 14

S Pance wrote…

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/Eas tern%20cycle%20route %20leaflet-3_tcm46-3 54666.pdf Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.

[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote:
So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?[/p][/quote]No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/Images/Eas
tern%20cycle%20route
%20leaflet-3_tcm46-3
54666.pdf
Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.From the sidelines

S Pance wrote…

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/Eas tern%20cycle%20route %20leaflet-3_tcm46-3 54666.pdf Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.

Score: 6

From the sidelines says...11:34am Fri 28 Feb 14

Mr E wrote…

I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.

She would appear to be a stranger to exercise. And salad.

[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote:
I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.[/p][/quote]She would appear to be a stranger to exercise.
And salad.From the sidelines

Mr E wrote…

I would like to know how many times Jacqui Rayment has cycled through this junction.

She would appear to be a stranger to exercise. And salad.

Score: 21

Dasal says...11:37am Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
Typical Southampton CC .
NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE..........
Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist.
And THEN tell us its "Safer"[/p][/quote]Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.[/p][/quote]So its my fault then.
Apologies to all................Dasal

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

Score: 0

gilbertratchet says...11:42am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dasal wrote…

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.

[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
Typical Southampton CC .
NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE..........
Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist.
And THEN tell us its "Safer"[/p][/quote]Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.[/p][/quote]So its my fault then.
Apologies to all................[/p][/quote]I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.gilbertratchet

Dasal wrote…

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.

Score: 4

CarlyKin says...11:46am Fri 28 Feb 14

Surely the lights need to be staggered as well! I had real difficulty in my car travelling from St Mary's to turn left onto Itchen Bridge due to all the cars from Ocean Village turning right onto the Bridge. Surely I should have had right of way yet I couldn't enter? If the lights are staggered from each junction surely this would help drivers as well as cyclists. However the issue with that I foresee is a backup of traffic at all junctions in rush hour due to waiting for lights to change. Out of choice I would prefer to wait then keep it as is as it is far too dangerous. If I had the choice, which I dont, I would rather the old roundabout and the way it was - it was far safer and far quicker to complete my journey. Complete waste of time, money and inconvenience,

Surely the lights need to be staggered as well! I had real difficulty in my car travelling from St Mary's to turn left onto Itchen Bridge due to all the cars from Ocean Village turning right onto the Bridge. Surely I should have had right of way yet I couldn't enter? If the lights are staggered from each junction surely this would help drivers as well as cyclists. However the issue with that I foresee is a backup of traffic at all junctions in rush hour due to waiting for lights to change. Out of choice I would prefer to wait then keep it as is as it is far too dangerous. If I had the choice, which I dont, I would rather the old roundabout and the way it was - it was far safer and far quicker to complete my journey. Complete waste of time, money and inconvenience,CarlyKin

Surely the lights need to be staggered as well! I had real difficulty in my car travelling from St Mary's to turn left onto Itchen Bridge due to all the cars from Ocean Village turning right onto the Bridge. Surely I should have had right of way yet I couldn't enter? If the lights are staggered from each junction surely this would help drivers as well as cyclists. However the issue with that I foresee is a backup of traffic at all junctions in rush hour due to waiting for lights to change. Out of choice I would prefer to wait then keep it as is as it is far too dangerous. If I had the choice, which I dont, I would rather the old roundabout and the way it was - it was far safer and far quicker to complete my journey. Complete waste of time, money and inconvenience,

Score: 7

Ginger_cyclist says...11:46am Fri 28 Feb 14

The council spokesman's comment about legislation is wrong, as are his comments about space constraints, to start with, if legislation didn't allow for seperate cycle lights, why are there several in place already, such as at Swaythling station to go under the narrow bridge, or the ccle light outside Bitterne police station, as for the "space constraints", that's total bull, an ASL only needs to be as wide as however many lanes there are on approach to the traffic lights BUT they MUST keep vehicles far enough back, so that if a truck stops behind a cyclist or cyclists, they don't end up hidden in the trucks blind spot directly in front of the cab, also, I would ALSO like to give Jacqui Rayment an open invitation to actually USE this junction on a bike with me, on camera.

The council spokesman's comment about legislation is wrong, as are his comments about space constraints, to start with, if legislation didn't allow for seperate cycle lights, why are there several in place already, such as at Swaythling station to go under the narrow bridge, or the ccle light outside Bitterne police station, as for the "space constraints", that's total bull, an ASL only needs to be as wide as however many lanes there are on approach to the traffic lights BUT they MUST keep vehicles far enough back, so that if a truck stops behind a cyclist or cyclists, they don't end up hidden in the trucks blind spot directly in front of the cab, also, I would ALSO like to give Jacqui Rayment an open invitation to actually USE this junction on a bike with me, on camera.Ginger_cyclist

The council spokesman's comment about legislation is wrong, as are his comments about space constraints, to start with, if legislation didn't allow for seperate cycle lights, why are there several in place already, such as at Swaythling station to go under the narrow bridge, or the ccle light outside Bitterne police station, as for the "space constraints", that's total bull, an ASL only needs to be as wide as however many lanes there are on approach to the traffic lights BUT they MUST keep vehicles far enough back, so that if a truck stops behind a cyclist or cyclists, they don't end up hidden in the trucks blind spot directly in front of the cab, also, I would ALSO like to give Jacqui Rayment an open invitation to actually USE this junction on a bike with me, on camera.

Score: 5

Ginger_cyclist says...11:47am Fri 28 Feb 14

From the sidelines wrote…

S Pance wrote…

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/Eas tern%20cycle%20route %20leaflet-3_tcm46-3 54666.pdf Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.

No, it's not.

[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote:
So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?[/p][/quote]No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/Images/Eas
tern%20cycle%20route
%20leaflet-3_tcm46-3
54666.pdf
Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.[/p][/quote]No, it's not.Ginger_cyclist

From the sidelines wrote…

S Pance wrote…

So, bicycles are in the green left hand lane but can turn right across the path of cars in the right hand lane and have priority?

No. There's a PDF to explain how it's supposed to work, at http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/Eas tern%20cycle%20route %20leaflet-3_tcm46-3 54666.pdf Look at this and tell me it's intuitive.

No, it's not.

Score: 1

bigfella777 says...11:51am Fri 28 Feb 14

The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.

The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.bigfella777

The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.

Score: 13

Ginger_cyclist says...11:55am Fri 28 Feb 14

bigfella777 wrote…

The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.

You mean the magic, invisible ASL box right?

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.[/p][/quote]You mean the magic, invisible ASL box right?Ginger_cyclist

bigfella777 wrote…

The reporters description is bang on, you do feel unsafe and confused and that's the last thing you want on a bike, apparently if you want to go right you have to sort of sweep in to the next junction opposite where you want to go, then wait in the asl for those lights to turn green and then proceed, if anything it hinders cyclists rather than helps them.

You mean the magic, invisible ASL box right?

Score: 3

Torchie1 says...12:01pm Fri 28 Feb 14

A tiny handful of cyclists feel compelled to complain about this junction as they complain about everything else because they are the moaners in society. Thousands of others seem to be bright enough to navigate this junction and accept that nothing in life is perfect.

A tiny handful of cyclists feel compelled to complain about this junction as they complain about everything else because they are the moaners in society. Thousands of others seem to be bright enough to navigate this junction and accept that nothing in life is perfect.Torchie1

A tiny handful of cyclists feel compelled to complain about this junction as they complain about everything else because they are the moaners in society. Thousands of others seem to be bright enough to navigate this junction and accept that nothing in life is perfect.

Score: -29

robich says...12:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

This seems to be an exercise in how to make a road junction more dangerous for cyclists. I never had a problem with the old roundabout but now fear for my life every time I cycle across it. It was supposed to be "Dutch style". It certainly is not. This is how they deal with it in Holland; http://youtu.be/XhqT c_wx5EU and this comments on the original proposal (which did feature ASLs and start early lights for cyclists: http://bicycledutch. wordpress.com/2013/0 4/12/what-qualifies- as-dutch-design/

This seems to be an exercise in how to make a road junction more dangerous for cyclists. I never had a problem with the old roundabout but now fear for my life every time I cycle across it.
It was supposed to be "Dutch style". It certainly is not.
This is how they deal with it in Holland; http://youtu.be/XhqT
c_wx5EU
and this comments on the original proposal (which did feature ASLs and start early lights for cyclists: http://bicycledutch.
wordpress.com/2013/0
4/12/what-qualifies-
as-dutch-design/robich

This seems to be an exercise in how to make a road junction more dangerous for cyclists. I never had a problem with the old roundabout but now fear for my life every time I cycle across it. It was supposed to be "Dutch style". It certainly is not. This is how they deal with it in Holland; http://youtu.be/XhqT c_wx5EU and this comments on the original proposal (which did feature ASLs and start early lights for cyclists: http://bicycledutch. wordpress.com/2013/0 4/12/what-qualifies- as-dutch-design/

Score: 8

Battered Cyclist says...12:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.Battered Cyclist

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Score: 28

downfader says...12:27pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Echo - there are no ASLs. How can they be "incorrectly placed"?

Echo - there are no ASLs. How can they be "incorrectly placed"?downfader

Echo - there are no ASLs. How can they be "incorrectly placed"?

Score: 5

Dasal says...12:33pm Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.

Oh dear, gilbert, gilbert, gilbert............. ... You MUST lighten up and not take everything so seriously! My remark was obviously made lightheartedly, which presumably went over your head. Have a nice day gilbert - from one of the "Echo Moronship" KEEP SMILING !!!

[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote:
Typical Southampton CC .
NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE..........
Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist.
And THEN tell us its "Safer"[/p][/quote]Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.[/p][/quote]So its my fault then.
Apologies to all................[/p][/quote]I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, gilbert, gilbert, gilbert.............
...
You MUST lighten up and not take everything so seriously!
My remark was obviously made lightheartedly, which presumably went over your head.
Have a nice day gilbert - from one of the "Echo Moronship"
KEEP SMILING !!!Dasal

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

gilbertratchet wrote…

Dasal wrote…

Typical Southampton CC . NOT LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE.......... Please refer to previous comments on this site re new cycle lanes following the earlier incident involving a cyclist. And THEN tell us its "Safer"

Who says they have to listen to the electorate, though? That's not their job. You vote them in to represent your best interests, not necessarily to do what you tell them.

So its my fault then. Apologies to all................

I have no idea where you got that from. Trust the Echo Moronship to play the victim card the second someone disagrees with them.

Oh dear, gilbert, gilbert, gilbert............. ... You MUST lighten up and not take everything so seriously! My remark was obviously made lightheartedly, which presumably went over your head. Have a nice day gilbert - from one of the "Echo Moronship" KEEP SMILING !!!

Score: 1

daveprotools says...1:10pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.daveprotools

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Score: -10

Ginger_cyclist says...1:14pm Fri 28 Feb 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.Ginger_cyclist

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Score: 5

downfader says...1:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Yeah you're not helping. Have you ever pushed a bike down the steps to the underpass? A lot of women wont want to use them late at night either. And if you cannot ride from A to B in the saddle then there is a major problem with the system or its users. Easier for you is not easier for all.

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]Yeah you're not helping.
Have you ever pushed a bike down the steps to the underpass? A lot of women wont want to use them late at night either. And if you cannot ride from A to B in the saddle then there is a major problem with the system or its users.
Easier for you is not easier for all.downfader

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Yeah you're not helping. Have you ever pushed a bike down the steps to the underpass? A lot of women wont want to use them late at night either. And if you cannot ride from A to B in the saddle then there is a major problem with the system or its users. Easier for you is not easier for all.

Score: 6

Saint 2701 says...1:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

complete failure, traffic is worse than ever, more accidents than ever and just what Southampton needed... MORE BLOODY TRAFFIC LIGHTS!!!

complete failure, traffic is worse than ever, more accidents than ever and just what Southampton needed... MORE BLOODY TRAFFIC LIGHTS!!!Saint 2701

complete failure, traffic is worse than ever, more accidents than ever and just what Southampton needed... MORE BLOODY TRAFFIC LIGHTS!!!

Score: 9

bigfella777 says...1:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it? I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.

Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it?
I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.bigfella777

Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it? I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.

Score: 7

Hamble Saints says...1:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.Hamble Saints

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Score: -6

tootle says...1:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

It took them 70 years to decide on, design and build the Itchen bridge. Maybe we just have to wait 69 years for the junction to be made safe. It confused me - it is just a vast accumulation of coloured lines on the road with no REAL indication as to purpose or usage. As I said on the previous thread i thought the whole expensive idea was to totally separate bikes and cars so thoughtless motorists don't injure cyclists and cyclists ignoring lights would be clearly in the wrong. Traffic cameras anyone? As far as I can tell Councillor Rayment has said it is safe, there had to be innovation(ie a new idea) to get the 1.7mill, the 1.7mill had to be spent on this particular bit of road, they couldn't do it as intended because of width restrictions(did it suddenly shrink), so they built what they could! Does that sum it up?Hmm.

It took them 70 years to decide on, design and build the Itchen bridge. Maybe we just have to wait 69 years for the junction to be made safe. It confused me - it is just a vast accumulation of coloured lines on the road with no REAL indication as to purpose or usage. As I said on the previous thread i thought the whole expensive idea was to totally separate bikes and cars so thoughtless motorists don't injure cyclists and cyclists ignoring lights would be clearly in the wrong. Traffic cameras anyone?
As far as I can tell Councillor Rayment has said it is safe, there had to be innovation(ie a new idea) to get the 1.7mill, the 1.7mill had to be spent on this particular bit of road, they couldn't do it as intended because of width restrictions(did it suddenly shrink), so they built what they could! Does that sum it up?Hmm.tootle

It took them 70 years to decide on, design and build the Itchen bridge. Maybe we just have to wait 69 years for the junction to be made safe. It confused me - it is just a vast accumulation of coloured lines on the road with no REAL indication as to purpose or usage. As I said on the previous thread i thought the whole expensive idea was to totally separate bikes and cars so thoughtless motorists don't injure cyclists and cyclists ignoring lights would be clearly in the wrong. Traffic cameras anyone? As far as I can tell Councillor Rayment has said it is safe, there had to be innovation(ie a new idea) to get the 1.7mill, the 1.7mill had to be spent on this particular bit of road, they couldn't do it as intended because of width restrictions(did it suddenly shrink), so they built what they could! Does that sum it up?Hmm.

Score: 0

NotoNwo says...1:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

No-one has mentioned the bus lay by stops being filled with an island so that in rushhour a bus will hold up traffic in the middle of the junction getting onto to the bridge and also the same has been done to the stop in Saltmarsh Rd.

No-one has mentioned the bus lay by stops being filled with an island so that in rushhour a bus will hold up traffic in the middle of the junction getting onto to the bridge and also the same has been done to the stop in Saltmarsh Rd.NotoNwo

No-one has mentioned the bus lay by stops being filled with an island so that in rushhour a bus will hold up traffic in the middle of the junction getting onto to the bridge and also the same has been done to the stop in Saltmarsh Rd.

Score: 2

Forest Resident says...1:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Cyclists are legitimate road traffic just the same as a car

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]Cyclists are legitimate road traffic just the same as a carForest Resident

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Cyclists are legitimate road traffic just the same as a car

Score: 5

gilbertratchet says...1:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]Easier for whom? Continually mounting and dismounting a vehicle sounds incredibly tiresome.gilbertratchet

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it? I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.

It was touted as safer, not as being utterly infallible. It's a bit early to say the new system has failed, because of one incident.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it?
I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.[/p][/quote]It was touted as safer, not as being utterly infallible. It's a bit early to say the new system has failed, because of one incident.gilbertratchet

bigfella777 wrote…

Everyone can bicker but at the end of the day a cyclist was knocked off in a newly opened supposedly cycle safe system so it obviously isn't very safe is it? I for one don't think this will be the last accident in the coming weeks and it is only the alertness of the cyclists using the system that is keeping them safe at the moment.

It was touted as safer, not as being utterly infallible. It's a bit early to say the new system has failed, because of one incident.

Score: 2

gilbertratchet says...1:46pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.gilbertratchet

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.

Score: 10

Ginger_cyclist says...1:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.

Exactly.

[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.[/p][/quote]Exactly.Ginger_cyclist

gilbertratchet wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Not only that, but you clearly are road users. Everyone would - rightly - be up in arms if you used pavements, so I fail to see in what way you aren't road users.

Exactly.

Score: 8

mickey01 says...1:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

is it me or have they copied my sons old play rug that had street layouts on it

is it me or have they copied my sons old play rug that had street layouts on itmickey01

is it me or have they copied my sons old play rug that had street layouts on it

Score: 10

downfader says...2:27pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.[/p][/quote]Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning.
The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.downfader

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

Score: 4

waggers5 says...2:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

The video at the end of the article is pretty clear how it's supposed to work for cyclists turning right. The problem is, the road markings and signage don't adequately explain that. You can't expect everyone using the junction to have watched that video first. Another issue is that it penalises cyclists for turning right by making them wait twice for the lights to be green. It's understandable that cyclists will run out of patience with that idea and try something different - especially if there are no clear instructions. The councillor's comment about not being allowed to have separate lights for cyclists is odd. We already have such an arrangement in Southampton at the Thomas Lewis Way / St Deny's Road junction and at the Swaythling railway arch.

The video at the end of the article is pretty clear how it's supposed to work for cyclists turning right. The problem is, the road markings and signage don't adequately explain that. You can't expect everyone using the junction to have watched that video first.
Another issue is that it penalises cyclists for turning right by making them wait twice for the lights to be green. It's understandable that cyclists will run out of patience with that idea and try something different - especially if there are no clear instructions.
The councillor's comment about not being allowed to have separate lights for cyclists is odd. We already have such an arrangement in Southampton at the Thomas Lewis Way / St Deny's Road junction and at the Swaythling railway arch.waggers5

The video at the end of the article is pretty clear how it's supposed to work for cyclists turning right. The problem is, the road markings and signage don't adequately explain that. You can't expect everyone using the junction to have watched that video first. Another issue is that it penalises cyclists for turning right by making them wait twice for the lights to be green. It's understandable that cyclists will run out of patience with that idea and try something different - especially if there are no clear instructions. The councillor's comment about not being allowed to have separate lights for cyclists is odd. We already have such an arrangement in Southampton at the Thomas Lewis Way / St Deny's Road junction and at the Swaythling railway arch.

Score: 7

SotonNorth says...2:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.SotonNorth

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Score: 6

Ginger_cyclist says...2:39pm Fri 28 Feb 14

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.Ginger_cyclist

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Score: -3

mickey01 says...2:42pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!!mickey01

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

Score: 2

Ginger_cyclist says...2:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.Ginger_cyclist

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

Score: 0

Battered Cyclist says...3:05pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".

[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.[/p][/quote]If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".Battered Cyclist

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".

Score: 5

Mushymat says...3:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone?
Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.Mushymat

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

Score: 2

Pool_of_blood says...3:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

I use this stretch at least twice a day (in a car), to and from work. Both cyclists and motorists are both as bad as each other, so there is no blame. Already I have seen cyclists jump the lights, or jump off their bike at the red light and almost walk across, then once over the lights cycle off. At the same time I have seen a couple of cars turn left down towards Ocean Village, and decided to "race" the bike to do so. It is a very bad junction at the best of times let alone wasting all the money on it. The best thing they could have done is kept it as a roundabout, but stop cars going down to Ocean Village and make it a bus / bike lane only.

I use this stretch at least twice a day (in a car), to and from work.
Both cyclists and motorists are both as bad as each other, so there is no blame. Already I have seen cyclists jump the lights, or jump off their bike at the red light and almost walk across, then once over the lights cycle off. At the same time I have seen a couple of cars turn left down towards Ocean Village, and decided to "race" the bike to do so.
It is a very bad junction at the best of times let alone wasting all the money on it. The best thing they could have done is kept it as a roundabout, but stop cars going down to Ocean Village and make it a bus / bike lane only.Pool_of_blood

I use this stretch at least twice a day (in a car), to and from work. Both cyclists and motorists are both as bad as each other, so there is no blame. Already I have seen cyclists jump the lights, or jump off their bike at the red light and almost walk across, then once over the lights cycle off. At the same time I have seen a couple of cars turn left down towards Ocean Village, and decided to "race" the bike to do so. It is a very bad junction at the best of times let alone wasting all the money on it. The best thing they could have done is kept it as a roundabout, but stop cars going down to Ocean Village and make it a bus / bike lane only.

Score: 2

loosehead says...4:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening? Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?

I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening?
Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?loosehead

I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening? Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?

Score: 4

RomseyKeith says...4:12pm Fri 28 Feb 14

If the councillor is so convinced that this improved junction is safer, let them put their money where their mouths are by putting their jobs on the line. If over the next 3 months like-for-like related accidents are down on last year over the same time period, then fair enough. However if this year they are up on last year's figures then the councillor should resign. Only then would we believe their sincerity.

If the councillor is so convinced that this improved junction is safer, let them put their money where their mouths are by putting their jobs on the line. If over the next 3 months like-for-like related accidents are down on last year over the same time period, then fair enough. However if this year they are up on last year's figures then the councillor should resign.
Only then would we believe their sincerity.RomseyKeith

If the councillor is so convinced that this improved junction is safer, let them put their money where their mouths are by putting their jobs on the line. If over the next 3 months like-for-like related accidents are down on last year over the same time period, then fair enough. However if this year they are up on last year's figures then the councillor should resign. Only then would we believe their sincerity.

Score: 1

Jesus_02 says...4:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

I am inclined to agree. Also, owners of horsless carrages should employ a young man with a green flag to walk in front of the cars to warn other road users of the approaching machine. Easier, Cheeper and safer. why do we choose to treat cars like they are people. They aren't.

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]I am inclined to agree.
Also, owners of horsless carrages should employ a young man with a green flag to walk in front of the cars to warn other road users of the approaching machine.
Easier, Cheeper and safer. why do we choose to treat cars like they are people. They aren't.Jesus_02

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

I am inclined to agree. Also, owners of horsless carrages should employ a young man with a green flag to walk in front of the cars to warn other road users of the approaching machine. Easier, Cheeper and safer. why do we choose to treat cars like they are people. They aren't.

Score: 3

Jesus_02 says...4:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Well done Dan for taking you life into your own hands for the sake of journalism!

Well done Dan for taking you life into your own hands for the sake of journalism!Jesus_02

Well done Dan for taking you life into your own hands for the sake of journalism!

Score: 8

Hamble Saints says...4:33pm Fri 28 Feb 14

downfader wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.

[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.[/p][/quote]Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning.
The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.[/p][/quote]Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.Hamble Saints

downfader wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.

Score: -2

sotonbusdriver says...4:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Looking at the instructional video provide on this page, actually means that Cyclist CANNOT TURN RIGHT, in a single move, but have to effectively first go straight across to the other pavement, and wait for the lights AGAIN to make the 2nd crossing to effectively turn right,,, I cannot see cyclists actually doing this as they will feel disadvantaged by making 2 sets of lights, rather than a single move....

Looking at the instructional video provide on this page, actually means that Cyclist CANNOT TURN RIGHT, in a single move, but have to effectively first go straight across to the other pavement, and wait for the lights AGAIN to make the 2nd crossing to effectively turn right,,,
I cannot see cyclists actually doing this as they will feel disadvantaged by making 2 sets of lights, rather than a single move....sotonbusdriver

Looking at the instructional video provide on this page, actually means that Cyclist CANNOT TURN RIGHT, in a single move, but have to effectively first go straight across to the other pavement, and wait for the lights AGAIN to make the 2nd crossing to effectively turn right,,, I cannot see cyclists actually doing this as they will feel disadvantaged by making 2 sets of lights, rather than a single move....

Score: 12

Ginger_cyclist says...5:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Battered Cyclist wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".

Well said.

[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.[/p][/quote]If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".[/p][/quote]Well said.Ginger_cyclist

Battered Cyclist wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

If I am in a queue of traffic then I integrate with it and respond to it -- I do not undercut cars that are in my lane. If I am in my own lane how am I supposed to queue up behind a car in a lane to the right of me without further cars overtaking me? At which point is it my turn? That is not sharing space. That is not integrated traffic management and that is certainly not making this junction more "cycle friendly".

Well said.

Score: -4

downfader says...5:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hamble Saints wrote…

downfader wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.

Defensive cycling is all well and good but there is a threshold where drivers need to be more proactive on their part. Or are you genuinely saying to ignore the Highway Code? (Rhetorical)

[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hamble Saints[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Battered Cyclist[/bold] wrote:
The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.[/p][/quote]Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.[/p][/quote]Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning.
The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.[/p][/quote]Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.[/p][/quote]Defensive cycling is all well and good but there is a threshold where drivers need to be more proactive on their part. Or are you genuinely saying to ignore the Highway Code? (Rhetorical)downfader

Hamble Saints wrote…

downfader wrote…

Hamble Saints wrote…

Battered Cyclist wrote…

The frustrating thing is I knew what I was doing. There was no confusion on my part. I was going straight on, through a green traffic light, in my own lane. There is no grey area for me. I was hit by a moron who turned left without looking. Maybe they were confused at whether they were supposed to check for other road users first before turning? They certainly didn't realise they were supposed to stop to see if they had killed me or not.

Surely then the lesson is: don't undercut cars on the junction when there is the opportunity for car lanes and bike lanes to cross paths ! Stay in the cycle lane but behind the car in front until you are sure they are continuing forward. Consider your approach speed up to the car in front and don't undercut; you should be anticipating one of the two options that they will be making (a left turn or straight on). The junction might not be safe therefore sensible riding and driving but all is required.

Rules 167 and 212 of the Highway Code cover this - DONT cross the cycle lane until it is safe to do so. You cannot technically "undercut" a car in a cycle lane, by definition it is a separate flow of traffic and the same rules apply for lane changing/turning. The rider who was hit did nothing wrong and clearly used the infra as it had been designed.

Yes that all fine and dandy, but its about acting in a manner that puts you at least risk when you are aware that a junction has the potential to be dangerous.

Defensive cycling is all well and good but there is a threshold where drivers need to be more proactive on their part. Or are you genuinely saying to ignore the Highway Code? (Rhetorical)

Score: -3

mickey01 says...6:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on green

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.[/p][/quote]not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on greenmickey01

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on green

Score: 0

Ginger_cyclist says...6:38pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on green

Because you only remember the few that you see going through red lights, it's a proven fact if nothing significant happens, you're less likely to remember specifics.

[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.[/p][/quote]not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on green[/p][/quote]Because you only remember the few that you see going through red lights, it's a proven fact if nothing significant happens, you're less likely to remember specifics.Ginger_cyclist

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

not in my experience i see them riding through red lights everyday and i would love em to hit my van as i go through on green

Because you only remember the few that you see going through red lights, it's a proven fact if nothing significant happens, you're less likely to remember specifics.

Score: -1

Donald2000 says...7:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

I am sorry but due to Southampton Itchen Bridge not being safe we are going to have to close the whole of the roundabout again and have it back the way it was. This is due to one cyclist having a wobbly. In other news, more beds become available in Antelope House for people with problems....

I am sorry but due to Southampton Itchen Bridge not being safe we are going to have to close the whole of the roundabout again and have it back the way it was. This is due to one cyclist having a wobbly.
In other news, more beds become available in Antelope House for people with problems....Donald2000

I am sorry but due to Southampton Itchen Bridge not being safe we are going to have to close the whole of the roundabout again and have it back the way it was. This is due to one cyclist having a wobbly. In other news, more beds become available in Antelope House for people with problems....

Score: -2

bigfella777 says...8:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.bigfella777

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

Score: 0

Ginger_cyclist says...8:10pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bigfella777 wrote…

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

I'm up for that.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.[/p][/quote]I'm up for that.Ginger_cyclist

bigfella777 wrote…

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

I'm up for that.

Score: 0

loosehead says...8:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bigfella777 wrote…

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

so put it out on Twitter & see how many turn up?

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.[/p][/quote]so put it out on Twitter & see how many turn up?loosehead

bigfella777 wrote…

Well I think a critical mass event should be organised, all cyclists who think this system is utter pants should gather en masse at a set time (preferably naked) and all descend on the system together and prove that it does not work and, if it does encourage cycling (lol) prove that it cannot cope with a large number of bicycles.

so put it out on Twitter & see how many turn up?

Score: 4

Mary80 says...9:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?Mary80

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Score: 3

downfader says...10:33pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?[/p][/quote]Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it.
Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence?
It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.downfader

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

Score: 2

gilbertratchet says...10:36am Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

Stop being reasonable. Only extreme sweeping statements are acceptable here.

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Stop being reasonable. Only extreme sweeping statements are acceptable here.gilbertratchet

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

We do, like most motorists obey traffic lights.

Stop being reasonable. Only extreme sweeping statements are acceptable here.

Score: 1

gilbertratchet says...10:37am Sat 1 Mar 14

Mushymat wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.

[quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone?
Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.[/p][/quote]80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.gilbertratchet

Mushymat wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.

Score: 1

tootle says...11:33am Sat 1 Mar 14

downfader wrote…

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?

[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?[/p][/quote]Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it.
Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence?
It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.[/p][/quote]Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?tootle

downfader wrote…

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?

Score: 1

bigfella777 says...11:44am Sat 1 Mar 14

tootle wrote…

downfader wrote…

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?

If we were cycling in our own segregated cycle lane like they have abroad it wouldn't matter what cyclists were doing would it, this is the whole point, there is no proper provision for cyclists when there should be.

[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?[/p][/quote]Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it.
Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence?
It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.[/p][/quote]Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?[/p][/quote]If we were cycling in our own segregated cycle lane like they have abroad it wouldn't matter what cyclists were doing would it, this is the whole point, there is no proper provision for cyclists when there should be.bigfella777

tootle wrote…

downfader wrote…

Mary80 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

Uh no they don't every day i see cyclists disregard red lights and go through them even on dangerous junctions when they put themselves in great danger. If car drivers get fined for it **** sure cyclists should too, after all you all want to be treated equal right....?

Cyclists do get fined for it. Ask Hants Police about it, they keep figures you can access via FOI. IIRC a couple of years back there were complaints about certain junctions and they only fined a handful as not that many did it. Remember - there are over 4000 riders in Southampton - for a majority to do as some have trolled about it would be extremely visible, even to the Police. Many of the camera cyclists would have caught it, many of the bloggers too... even a couple of drivers in Southampton using dashcams - yet where is the evidence? It doesnt exist to the levels suggested because its a minority group of idiots.

Not sure it is a minority. When I go out it seems the majority are wandering through red lights, wobbling across the road without signalling, jumping on and off the pavement etc . However on the odd occasions I am out in the rush hour then the opposite is true. Different cyclists, different reasons for cycling, different abilities?

If we were cycling in our own segregated cycle lane like they have abroad it wouldn't matter what cyclists were doing would it, this is the whole point, there is no proper provision for cyclists when there should be.

Score: 2

loosehead says...12:03pm Sat 1 Mar 14

I believe in cycling but I also believe a few/ minority ruin it for the majority. In Shirley there are signs on both pavements saying no Cycling yet so many ride on the pavement with out a care for pedestrians. but this isn't what the articles about it's about a cycle way which with cyclists help should have been good for both cyclists & car drivers but for some reason the council altered the agreed system & now what they have is dangerous

I believe in cycling but I also believe a few/ minority ruin it for the majority.
In Shirley there are signs on both pavements saying no Cycling yet so many ride on the pavement with out a care for pedestrians.
but this isn't what the articles about it's about a cycle way which with cyclists help should have been good for both cyclists & car drivers but for some reason the council altered the agreed system & now what they have is dangerousloosehead

I believe in cycling but I also believe a few/ minority ruin it for the majority. In Shirley there are signs on both pavements saying no Cycling yet so many ride on the pavement with out a care for pedestrians. but this isn't what the articles about it's about a cycle way which with cyclists help should have been good for both cyclists & car drivers but for some reason the council altered the agreed system & now what they have is dangerous

Score: 1

Ginger_cyclist says...12:11pm Sat 1 Mar 14

gilbertratchet wrote…

Mushymat wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.

Some of that speeding doesn't result in collisions or the collisions aren't reported though, so you won't notice it by looking t the number of speeding related collisions.

[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote:
As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult.
The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights.
As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.[/p][/quote]Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.[/p][/quote]yea right !!![/p][/quote]I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone?
Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.[/p][/quote]80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.[/p][/quote]Some of that speeding doesn't result in collisions or the collisions aren't reported though, so you won't notice it by looking t the number of speeding related collisions.Ginger_cyclist

gilbertratchet wrote…

Mushymat wrote…

mickey01 wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

SotonNorth wrote…

As was mentioned earlier, couldn't the council have just shrunken the roundabout so that there was a single lane on each approach and a single lane on the circulation? That way the person in front always has priority over the person behind, and 'overtaking' of cyclists on the roundabout would be difficult. The council didn't think of that though. Southampton have a long running love affair with traffic lights. As for separate traffic lights for cyclists, can anybody put their hand on heart and say cyclists would actually obey them? I wholeheartedly believe they would be almost universally ignored and a waste of money. It is clear from me roads policing is insufficient nowadays anyway. Roads need to be safe by design, and the new design implemented is not safe.

Most cyclists obey traffic lights anyway.

yea right !!!

I've never jumped a red. Did you know 80% of car drivers regularly speed, and a 3rd use their phone? Dont loose sight of perspective, or let your generalizations get in the way of facts.

80% of drivers regularly speed? Yeh I can believe that. Looking at how few speed-related accidents there are, really, it seems to me the speed limits are out-dated.

Some of that speeding doesn't result in collisions or the collisions aren't reported though, so you won't notice it by looking t the number of speeding related collisions.

Score: 0

Ronnie G says...1:33pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!Ronnie G

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Score: 0

Ginger_cyclist says...1:39pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ronnie G wrote…

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Please don't, you seen the size of her?

[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote:
Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV![/p][/quote]Please don't, you seen the size of her?Ginger_cyclist

Ronnie G wrote…

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Please don't, you seen the size of her?

Score: 1

loosehead says...1:52pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

Ronnie G wrote…

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Please don't, you seen the size of her?

surely the only people designing this road lay out should have been cyclists & health & safety experts not a load of politicians?

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote:
Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV![/p][/quote]Please don't, you seen the size of her?[/p][/quote]surely the only people designing this road lay out should have been cyclists & health & safety experts not a load of politicians?loosehead

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

Ronnie G wrote…

Cllr Rayment GET UR LYCRA OUT AND GET ON YER BIKE LUV!

Please don't, you seen the size of her?

surely the only people designing this road lay out should have been cyclists & health & safety experts not a load of politicians?

Score: 1

Popkiss says...8:56pm Sat 1 Mar 14

£1.7m spent, four months of travel disruption and this new junction is the end result?!!! Someone is being taken for a ride ....

£1.7m spent, four months of travel disruption and this new junction is the end result?!!! Someone is being taken for a ride ....Popkiss

£1.7m spent, four months of travel disruption and this new junction is the end result?!!! Someone is being taken for a ride ....

Score: 3

theoriginalwasp says...2:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

As a cyclist I too am a road user. A road is not simply and exclusively for the use of cars. The junction is poorly designed, that is clear. It's not conducive to proper cyclist traffic flow. I just urge motorists in all forms, car, bike, cyclist, bus, lorry etc. who use the junction to be aware. Debate all you like about various peripheral subjects just be considerate to other road users.

[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]As a cyclist I too am a road user. A road is not simply and exclusively for the use of cars.
The junction is poorly designed, that is clear. It's not conducive to proper cyclist traffic flow.
I just urge motorists in all forms, car, bike, cyclist, bus, lorry etc. who use the junction to be aware. Debate all you like about various peripheral subjects just be considerate to other road users.theoriginalwasp

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

As a cyclist I too am a road user. A road is not simply and exclusively for the use of cars. The junction is poorly designed, that is clear. It's not conducive to proper cyclist traffic flow. I just urge motorists in all forms, car, bike, cyclist, bus, lorry etc. who use the junction to be aware. Debate all you like about various peripheral subjects just be considerate to other road users.

Score: 3

dolomiteman says...12:14am Mon 3 Mar 14

loosehead wrote…

I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening? Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?

Because the story was reported just before a weekend and councillors don't work weekends so it will be Tuesday before they even consider if they can be bothered to pass the buck and blame the previous government or the contractors. .

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening?
Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?[/p][/quote]Because the story was reported just before a weekend and councillors don't work weekends so it will be Tuesday before they even consider if they can be bothered to pass the buck and blame the previous government or the contractors.
.dolomiteman

loosehead wrote…

I don't use this route & I no longer ride a bike but if both cyclists & car drivers are saying this lay out is an accident waiting to happen why aren't the council listening? Maybe get Rayment onto a bike & ride this route in the rush hour could be a way to see who's right?

Because the story was reported just before a weekend and councillors don't work weekends so it will be Tuesday before they even consider if they can be bothered to pass the buck and blame the previous government or the contractors. .

Score: 0

Sarfhampton2 says...12:40pm Mon 3 Mar 14

I used this junction and was confused and bemused by the green lines, not clear at all.

I used this junction and was confused and bemused by the green lines, not clear at all.Sarfhampton2

I used this junction and was confused and bemused by the green lines, not clear at all.

Score: 2

mikey2gorgeous says...11:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes. Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.

[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.[/p][/quote]Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes.
Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.mikey2gorgeous

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes. Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.

Score: -1

Ginger_cyclist says...11:56am Wed 5 Mar 14

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes. Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.

Errr... Cyclists are a part of traffic, they're on road vehicles and it's certainly not as dangerous to use the road as you make it out to be. in fact, you're SIXTY times more likely to be hit by a car when walking on the pavement than you are when cycling on the road, where you should be cycling. Also, modern, tar paved, dust free roads were originally paid and built for cyclists, the car was late to jump on the band wagon.

[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]daveprotools[/bold] wrote:
Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.[/p][/quote]We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.[/p][/quote]Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes.
Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.[/p][/quote]Errr... Cyclists are a part of traffic, they're on road vehicles and it's certainly not as dangerous to use the road as you make it out to be. in fact, you're SIXTY times more likely to be hit by a car when walking on the pavement than you are when cycling on the road, where you should be cycling.
Also, modern, tar paved, dust free roads were originally paid and built for cyclists, the car was late to jump on the band wagon.Ginger_cyclist

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Ginger_cyclist wrote…

daveprotools wrote…

Why would it be so difficult for Cyclists to get off their bikes and walk across the roads to the other side, or use underpasses? Easier, cheaper and safer! Why do we have to treat them as if they are cars. They aren't.

We're LEGALLY classed as ROAD vehicles is why, look up the UN 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, it will ell you that bicycles are road vehicles and will show you EXACTLY, which countries signed it and yes, the UK was one of those that signed it.

Exactly! Cyclists should NOT be forced to share roads with large amounts of heavy fast-moving traffic. There should be a separate infrastructure for this. We don't ask pedestrians to walk along in the same space - there would be an outcry if it were suggested yet we cling on to this ridiculous idea that cyclists are able to safely use the road lanes. Death after death after death - and our children and a large proportion of the adult population are denied the ability to use a bike.

Errr... Cyclists are a part of traffic, they're on road vehicles and it's certainly not as dangerous to use the road as you make it out to be. in fact, you're SIXTY times more likely to be hit by a car when walking on the pavement than you are when cycling on the road, where you should be cycling. Also, modern, tar paved, dust free roads were originally paid and built for cyclists, the car was late to jump on the band wagon.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here